Photography- A legal Question?

[Emma and Eva's Mum]

I just checked with my son who is a contracts lawyer but has some knowledge of copyright. He sent this...

"Two year ago, the Canadian copyright laws gave photographers the copyright of their images. So a photo belongs to the photographer not the subject of the photograph or their parents if the subject of the image is a minor. For example, if a family paid a photographer to take a family portrait, or to photograph a wedding, the images still belong to the photographer. Think of it like buying a DVD - you have bought a copy of the movie produced, you may use it for personal viewing but you don't own the actual film itself and you don't have their rights to use that DVD commercially. There are limits on what you can do with the DVD just like their are limits as to what you can do with a photographer's image.

Photographer = the person who pushed the button and captured the image. It doesn't just relate to a professional photographer.

To use an image commercially , like this day home provider did, - she used it in advertising/marketing and therefore it's considered commercial use, the rules are a bit different. The subject of the image should have signed a model release form that permits the photographer to use that image in advertising (commercially). In the event that a child is below the age of majority, the parent is meant to sign on the child's behalf.

If she has such a release already, the fact this family is no longer a client, won't matter. You can't give your permission and then take it away for actions that happened during the time permission had been given. A client who gave permission before can certainly change their mind but that would only relate to images from this date forwards.

If the child is recognisable, and if the parents had not signed a model release, then yes, they can demand that she takes the image down. They can demand that it's not used commercially , and strictly speaking, they can demand a fee from her for using it.

Further - inside a privately owned building and on privately owned property, people have the right of privacy. You are not allowed to take a photo of someone in their house, on their boat, on their driveway, in their yard, without permission. You can take a photo of someone, even if they object, if they on out in public though.

Bottom line - no using images commercially without express written permission of the person in the photo, or their parent if it's a minor.
No photographing people without their permission on private property, even if the person isn't the owner.
They can demand the image is taken down and not used. They can't demand that she destroys the image because it's hers (she's the photographer and owns the image and the copyright).

If you are going to take photos of minor children, get written permission and never use them commercially without covering that child's face. They must no be recognisable.

May i add that the photo was taken in public during a summer party so all the children were in the care of their respective parents. I will agree with a lot of what your son has to say about this matter.
I do not know if this applies to Canada as well, but my friend is talking about getting a Creative Commons license https://www.1and1.co.uk/digitalguide...yright-online/ because just like it says in the article- once you obtained content under this CC license, it cannot be withdrawn!
I guess she doesn't want to take the picture down because she wants to go the legal way...in the sense that if such a situation were to happen again, this time round..she would be legally better prepared